Debunked: Public Law 105-85 Allowing Testing of Biological and Chemical Weapons [It's the Opposite]

IMG_3028 copy.jpg
Public Law 105-85 (U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 32, § 1520a) came into effect in 1997. It makes it illegal for the military to test biological and chemical weapons on people, and also makes it illegal to conduct peaceful experiments on people without their informed consent. It reads:
That's a bit of a wall of text, so let's break it down:
(a) The military can not test chemical or biological things on people
(c) Unless they have the informed consent of each individual in advance
(d) AND notice has been given to congress
(b) AND only if it's for peaceful purposes, defenses against weapons, or for purposes related to riot control​

Notice I changed the order there. It does not change the meaning at all, I just wanted people to focus on (c) Informed consent required. Meaning they can only do it if they have your informed consent.

Nevertheless, you see things like this passed around on Facebook.
upload_2014-8-29_15-45-50.png

This is totally backwards. The law very specifically forbids the testing of biological weapons in any circumstances whatsoever. They can't do it even if they get your consent.

No only does it forbid the testing of biological and chemical weapons, it also forbids the testing of anything else at all, unless you've given your informed consent.

The worst thing that this law allows would be the testing of things like tear gas on you, but only if you specifically agree to let them do it, and congress has been notified of the study.

Various sites try to force their own interpretation of this law:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...the-informed-consent-of-the-public/#more-1685
[bunk]So section (a) prohibits these cruel and inhumane chemical and biological tests on humans.

Then section (b) says that the prohibitions in section (a) do not apply to tests carried out for virtually any purpose. So section (b) completely negates the prohibitions of section (a).

In Other Words:
The U.S. government can test chemicals and biological agents on humans for nearly any purpose they desire.
[/bunk]Again this is backwards. Firstly it's not for "nearly any purpose", it quite specifically excludes chemical and biological weapons in any circumstance. And while (b) does give exceptions for (a) they have totally ignored that part (c) applies to part (b). Hence informed consent is always required.

But they go on to suggest that this is "just a trick"
[bunk]
Because you’ve already been “informed in advance” and you’ve already given your “consent”.

Because this “law” is publicly available for everyone to read, you have been “informed”. Because you have not contested it (that’s what the courts are for), you have provided your “consent”.
...
So, in reality, section (c) is legally useless. It does not provide any additional protection, it only “seems” to. Section (c)’s only purpose for being included in this law is deception, nothing more.
[/bunk]They arrive at this backwards conclusion by basically making up their own definition of "informed consent". They make the rather head-spinningly circular claim that adding a clause requiring consent means you don't actually have to get consent as the subject should know that you are supposed to have consent. But what is the actual definition and usage in law?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Informed Consent
So besides the actual obvious step to giving agreement, you've also got to be told everything about the study. If there are any secrets, then you can't even give consent. Informed consent is not about being told something will be done. It's being told everything about that thing, and then specifically agreeing to it.

The legality of informed consent is quite well studied, and nowhere does the backwards and circular usage of "awareness of the law requiring consent being equal to the consent that is required" even make an appearance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent
So even if you have explicitly given your fully informed consent, if the test affects anyone who hasn't, or cannot (like children, or the mentally ill) then it is illegal.

And remember this is a law prohibiting testing on human subjects. Even if you gave your fully informed consent, and even if the test did not affect anyone else, then the test STILL has to satisfy all the other laws that govern such things.
 
Last edited:
you don't actually have to get consent as the subject should know that you are supposed to have consent.
This would be based on the general principle that "ignorance of the law is no defence", ie a law applies to you even if you don't know about it, as long as it has been properly published. In practice, serious laws about serious matters that apply to everyone usually get widespread publicity, eg if they change what side of the road to drive on, or prohibit watering at certain hours in times of drought.

They DID expose people to atomic bomb tests without consent, and a lot of experiments, military and medical both, used to be done on prisoners. I believe for dangerous ones they chose people on death row. I can check this tomorrow if it's relevant.
 
This would be based on the general principle that "ignorance of the law is no defence", ie a law applies to you even if you don't know about it, as long as it has been properly published. In practice, serious laws about serious matters that apply to everyone usually get widespread publicity, eg if they change what side of the road to drive on, or prohibit watering at certain hours in times of drought.

They DID expose people to atomic bomb tests without consent, and a lot of experiments, military and medical both, used to be done on prisoners. I believe for dangerous ones they chose people on death row. I can check this tomorrow if it's relevant.
That's what they are trying to argue, but it does not apply here, as it's not about ignorance of the law, it's about ignorance of the full details of the study (as well as actually having to give consent).

The atomic bomb tests were probably legal at the time. This law came into effect in 1997. There is some discussion of the change in the law here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wh...uman-experimentation-illegal-chemtrails.1108/
 
This would be based on the general principle that "ignorance of the law is no defence", ie a law applies to you even if you don't know about it
This law only applies to the Secretary of Defence and I would hope he knows about it.
 
This law only applies to the Secretary of Defense and I would hope he knows about it.
Yeah, you'd have to argue that the Secretary of Defense knows that you should know that he knows he needs to get your informed consent, therefore he does not need to, because knowing someone knows you know you need to do something is the same as actually doing that thing, hence all laws are invalid, or some such.
 
Yeah, you'd have to argue that the Secretary of Defense knows that you should know that he knows he needs to get your informed consent, therefore he does not need to, because knowing someone knows you know you need to do something is the same as actually doing that thing, hence all laws are invalid, or some such.
Its not going to fly, it being something he is expected to know about due to his position it would be imputed i.e. the court will pass judgement on the basis that he did know without regard to whether or not he actually did. As KAT pointed out,
"ignorance of the law is no defence",
Its probably on a list of do's and don'ts in the Secretary of Defence induction pack.
 
the court will pass judgement on the basis that he did know without regard to whether or not he actually did. As KAT pointed out,
Ignorance of law doesn't even apply to YOU and ME (tho in minor matters they might let us off).. The Secretary of Defence has a whole huge multi trillion dollar department that includes lawyers to make sure he does it right, (or at least doesn't get caught).
 
It's not a serious argument. :) The "ignorance of the law" discussion really has no relevance here at all, except that it was brought up in on of the conspiracy theory articles in an obviously specious way.
 
Last edited:
"The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)—
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects."

I'm curious about the redundancy here; why not just replace 'civilian population' with 'human subject' and get rid of '2'?...Oh, wait...this is a product of Washington D.C.
 
I'm curious about the redundancy here;
Essentially, this safeguards all humans, and CIVILIAN aliens (ET variety). There is also a subtle difference between experiment and testing. Testing implies seeing if it's safe, experiment implies let's see what happens if....
 
...so non-"civillian" Humans CAN be chemically experimented on, I knew those crafty Mengele-wannabees would leave themselves a loop-hole.
 
A little OT... I love "informed consent", it is the basis of the libertarian view of the world. Unfortunately there are free market libertarians that think you can have informed consent without enforcement. Just like the government mandated info on your food packaging: "each 100g contains 1000 Kcals, 1 g of asbestos, and a lethal dose of arsenic" might make you buy a competitor's product. But the free market types hate that.
 
Except the one tiny issue with your assertion; the exemption clause which makes it legal for "law enforcement" to conduct such testing WITHOUT informed consent if such testing pertains to "riot control". Wow. Mick. I feel SO much better! The police state we now live under would NEVER abuse it's power and test things that might be harmful to the populace, would they? After all, they only use tear gas, rubber bullets and the like. They would NEVER abuse their authority, would they?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No - you didn't read it correctly.

The exceptions in section (b) are still subject to informed consent as per section (c) - section (b) lists exceptions to the TOTAL prohibition in section (a)

So it actually means:

(a) SecDef cannot do any experiments at all.
(b) EXCEPT - he can do experiments in these areas subject to section (c)
(c) Informed consent is always required for all experiments.
(and he also has to notify congress)

sorry about that.
 
Mike, If you notice section ONLY speaks to the Secretary of Defense. It mentions NOTHING about law enforcement, period. Therefore, section C (informed consent) can not and does not apply to law enforcement. In addition, it does't have to! Section A only prohibits the Defense department. The exemption for law enforcement listed under section B for law enforcement shouldn't even be in this legislation.
Even Mick confirms this in the original post saying and I quote: "Public Law 105-85 (U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 32, § 1520a) came into effect in 1997. It makes it illegal for the military to test biological and chemical weapons on people,..."
Nowhere do you see the word(s) "law enforcement". It ONLY speaks to the military and vis a vis the Defense department. The language is unambiguous and the law was clearly meant to keep the military from doing what they have done in the past; use innocent, uninformed human subjects for testing without informed consent. This has been time and time again in US history.
The ONLY reason a "law enforcement" exemption was even IN the law was to paint a very clear picture to the police of our nation. That is, they needn't worry about this law. They can continue to do as they wish.
It seems very clear to me what it says, but I had a lawyer friend read it as well and he confirmed what I clearly read and what is actually stated in the law.

sorry
 
That is, they needn't worry about this law. They can continue to do as they wish.
There's just all the other laws they have to worry about. One law not applying to someone does not mean they can do whatever they wish.

The law does not apply to you. Does that mean you can legally test drugs and chemical weapons on your neighbor without his agreement?
 
Mike, If you notice section ONLY speaks to the Secretary of Defense. It mentions NOTHING about law enforcement, period.
that is probably because US Code title 50 is U.S. Code: Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE, and the title of 50 U.S. Code Chapter 32 is CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM

So none of it actually aplies to law enforcement.

Look to other laws for what law enforcement can and cannot do.

As you should be for wasting everyone's time (including your own) by not understanding what you are talking about.
 
It ONLY speaks to the military and vis a vis the Defense department. The language is unambiguous and the law was clearly meant to keep the military from doing what they have done in the past; use innocent, uninformed human subjects for testing without informed consent. This has been time and time again in US history.
The ONLY reason a "law enforcement" exemption was even IN the law was to paint a very clear picture to the police of our nation.
So. Is now your claim that the many and varied police organizations of the United States of America are "tasked" with....the testing of biological and chemical weapons on unsuspecting civilians?

If so, then please show some evidence of this. Merely "inferring" based on a mis-interpretation of this enacted law is NOT "proof"...of anything.
 
Ok so is there a site where i can go to to view these reports that they were required to send to Congress and the House of Reps? Because ive seen a lot of chemtrails throughout the years and surely no one has ever knocked on my door or sent me a postcard regarding what or why, or mlore importantly, if i consent to, the aerial spraying i witness regularly.
I am not here to argue, even when the idea and feasablity of someone actually informing every human subject (or human 'being' as i would prefer to be called) and get the permission of 100% of the entire population in the area is completely absurd. But i will keep an open mind, if you could just point the way to the records for the last decade, i will be more than happy to change my way of thinking.
 
Because ive seen a lot of chemtrails throughout the years and surely no one has ever knocked on my door or sent me a postcard regarding what or why, or mlore importantly, if i consent to, the aerial spraying i witness regularly.
The fact that you have not been notified of any test probably indicates there is no test. It seems most likely you've been seeing contrails. There's a lot of misinformation about how contrails can't persist.
 
if you could just point the way to the records for the last decade, i will be more than happy to change my way of thinking.
Sounds like a question for your congress person. Go to his/her house.gov website and send an email asking if there have ever been any notices under 50 USC Sec 1520(a)(d), and if so, if they are available to the public.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Trailblazer Debunked: Australia Becomes First Country To Begin Microchipping Its Public Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Debunked: AnonSec's NASA Hack, Global Hawk Hijack, Evidence of Chemtrails [Public Domain Data] General Discussion 32
HappyMonday DEBUNKED: David Lim - Public talks on geoengineering / chemtrails in the UK Contrails and Chemtrails 159
BlueCollarCritic Debunked - Texas Public Educations Secret CSCOPE Curriculum Conspiracy Theories 17
Mick West Debunked: CFR Admits "Millions Spent to Confuse Public About Geoengineering" Quotes Debunked 0
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 1
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 13
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 3
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: "Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface:" [Stray Light] Contrails and Chemtrails 30
Astro Debunked: Apollo Lunar Module Hatch Too Small for Spacesuit Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West Debunked: Thermite Slag on WTC beams [Oxy Cutting Slag] 9/11 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top